i see, the graphs just had time so i didnt know if it had specific enough information to narrow it down to specific objects/combo #
forum
Performance Points feedback and suggestions (Standard)
posted
Total Posts
2,750
I think the idea here does not intend to reduce the value of current scores under any circumstances, nor should it mean giving small combo scores near full combo values.silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.
Instead using this we could reward some non full combo performances adequately higher, than what they are currently worth with the (your combo^08/total combo^08) weighting, WHEN we can be sure that even in the worst case scenario (easiest consecutive "your combo length" section) includes the hardest parts.
So this way there wouldn't be any negative aspects to this, only the upside that certain non FC performances could be rewarded higher, where we can be sure that it's justified.
Well, comparing the proposed combo factor with the current one, maps that have the hardest part at the very end or very beginning relatively would get smaller combo factor for non-FC; but I don't think it is a bad thing.Drezi wrote:
I think the idea here does not intend to reduce the value of current scores under any circumstances, nor should it mean giving small combo scores near full combo values.silmarilen wrote:
but then you are just assuming things. you are not fixing a problem, you are just shifting the problem somewhere else.
For example, one of the reasons this map with DT gives so much pp for it's difficulty https://osu.ppy.sh/b/84811?m=0 is because the hardest part is at the very end, but the map is relatively easy, so you get a considerable amount of pp even if you failed the jumps at the end.
Yeah, I don't think it would be a bad thing either, I always support changes for the better, but most people don't like bigger changes, and here the current weight could simply be bumped up when it's appropriate, so that shouldn't be problematic in any way.
Unrelated to the previous discussion (It's interesting though, and I support the idea) - How are doubles weighted in this system? Are they counted separately or as a two note stream? Because, if it's the latter, then they are heavily undervalued. I know for a fact that a majority of the players I talk to have a lot of difficulty with playing doubles, mostly because they find the rhythm odd and because the constant switching from blue to red/white polarity that comes with doubles (or 1/6 patterns which are even harder to understand for non-musically inclined people) confuses them as opposed to your regular 4/4 signature rhythms.
I think that, unless doubles have already been addressed separately, they should be. A map full of doubles (like Lan's diff in Yoiyami Hanabi or Tsukimiyo Rabbit) is quite difficult to get a high accuracy on, especially when the OD is up there and when the map is fast. I apologize if I missed any sections on them, but I feel like they're something that should be addressed.
And then maybe take a look at 1/3 type patterns as well, since those are also often confusing for a lot of players. I don't think the boost should be huge (and maybe it's already there) but it would be nice to know whether those are rewarded in some form of the other.
I think that, unless doubles have already been addressed separately, they should be. A map full of doubles (like Lan's diff in Yoiyami Hanabi or Tsukimiyo Rabbit) is quite difficult to get a high accuracy on, especially when the OD is up there and when the map is fast. I apologize if I missed any sections on them, but I feel like they're something that should be addressed.
And then maybe take a look at 1/3 type patterns as well, since those are also often confusing for a lot of players. I don't think the boost should be huge (and maybe it's already there) but it would be nice to know whether those are rewarded in some form of the other.
I don't think there's such a thing as counting two notes separately or as a stream. Time and distance between notes is looked at afaik.
It's true that complex rythms are harder to acc though, not sure how well it is accounted for.
It's true that complex rythms are harder to acc though, not sure how well it is accounted for.
How difficult a map is rhythmically isn't taken into consideration at all right now. Doubles are treated the same as any other notes and contribute to the strain values in the same way any other notes would based on their position and timing.
1/3 patterns aren't given any bonus and I don't think giving them a bonus would be a good thing - changing the listed bpm of a map would change which patterns are 1/3 without changing anything about gameplay. It would probably make sense to give a bit of a bonus when the notes change from 1/3 to 1/2 to 1/6 to 1/4 etc, but that also is currently not considered.
1/3 patterns aren't given any bonus and I don't think giving them a bonus would be a good thing - changing the listed bpm of a map would change which patterns are 1/3 without changing anything about gameplay. It would probably make sense to give a bit of a bonus when the notes change from 1/3 to 1/2 to 1/6 to 1/4 etc, but that also is currently not considered.
That's a shame, when it comes to rythm the less repetitive it is, the harder.
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum, but even a repeating pattern is harder to pull off..
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum, but even a repeating pattern is harder to pull off..
if you told a random person to keep a steady, simple beat on a drum at some normal bpmDrezi wrote:
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum
you'd be surprised at how many people would have the tendency to speed up drastically if they didnt have some sort of metronome to follow
Something like the algorithm here in tom94's ask.fm could be used http://pastebin.com/cFGUJdGaDrezi wrote:
That's a shame, when it comes to rythm the less repetitive it is, the harder.
I mean it's like anyone can hit a constant beat on a drum, but even a repeating pattern is harder to pull off..
It is for taiko, but could be used for standard too if the only variable of the objects is the time between hits, with only one color present, considering both circles and slider starts as the same kind of object. Sliders might be considered a little different (probably making sliders of a certain duration have a "partial" match with circles or sliders of different duration if both share the same time between key presses, where the partial match reduces the rhythm complexity strain less than a full match).
Using a weighting of the strains of 0.9975 (So the maximum value is 400):
"Rhythm Complexity"
xi - FREEDOM DiVE [FOUR DIMENSIONS]: 348.488
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/297463&m=0 351.973
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/312959&m=1 324.277
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272&m=0 271.207
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/323875&m=0 256.527
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/152078&m=1 369.495
https://osu.ppy.sh/b/58063&m=0 328.276
But in osu you DO have a metronome - the music itself (also if you start speeding up, you start getting 100s), and it doesn't even matter, cause the point is that relatively a constant beat is still easier to pull off more or less accurately than harder patterns.Apink Chorong wrote:
if you told a random person to keep a steady, simple beat on a drum at some normal bpm
you'd be surprised at how many people would have the tendency to speed up drastically if they didnt have some sort of metronome to follow
@Full Tablet: that looks pretty good.
Are you planning on posting anything constructive?
Anyway, Drezi sees my point here. Rhythm complexity matters a lot, if you have a 5-second section that's filled with spaced 1/4 sliders, it'll be easier to get high accuracy on than on an equally long section of the same BPM with various triplets, doubles and streams. I also think that polarity shifts should be taken into account, and 1/3 rhythms should receive some attention of their own (though it would obviously depend on the map speed and difficulty how much of a bonus this would give). I think if you take rhythm complexity + jesus' idea of measuring how well you did based on the minimum max combo required to have FCd the hardest part of the map, you will already be a lot closer to accurately measuring + rewarding a map based on it's difficult. Per-hitobject data might be easier, but since that's not currently an option, there's nothing wrong with finding viable alternatives that would still be better/more accurate than the current system.
Also, I would really like to see a change in the weightings as mentioned a while ago. I'd been thinking of that and Drezi's idea of having it taper off to 0 faster, but weighing the higher scores heavier sounded like a great alternative. Based off of my own experience, even scores that aren't in my top 20 don't really give a significant amount of pp, so having them taper off at 40 (if I remember correctly) sounds extremely lenient to me. I don't see why you'd be chasing after 1% scores anyway.
Anyway, Drezi sees my point here. Rhythm complexity matters a lot, if you have a 5-second section that's filled with spaced 1/4 sliders, it'll be easier to get high accuracy on than on an equally long section of the same BPM with various triplets, doubles and streams. I also think that polarity shifts should be taken into account, and 1/3 rhythms should receive some attention of their own (though it would obviously depend on the map speed and difficulty how much of a bonus this would give). I think if you take rhythm complexity + jesus' idea of measuring how well you did based on the minimum max combo required to have FCd the hardest part of the map, you will already be a lot closer to accurately measuring + rewarding a map based on it's difficult. Per-hitobject data might be easier, but since that's not currently an option, there's nothing wrong with finding viable alternatives that would still be better/more accurate than the current system.
Also, I would really like to see a change in the weightings as mentioned a while ago. I'd been thinking of that and Drezi's idea of having it taper off to 0 faster, but weighing the higher scores heavier sounded like a great alternative. Based off of my own experience, even scores that aren't in my top 20 don't really give a significant amount of pp, so having them taper off at 40 (if I remember correctly) sounds extremely lenient to me. I don't see why you'd be chasing after 1% scores anyway.
Well, we discussed a few of ideas here that have potential imo, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of feedback at this point.
Topic Starter
The proposed max combo scaling would be an improvement over the pp system, but considering the effort it would take to implement it (adding it to the difficulty calculator, storing some kind of approximation of the combo scaling graph in the database etc.) other gamemodes should still be at a higher priority at the moment I think.Drezi wrote:
Well, we discussed a few of ideas here that have potential imo, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of feedback at this point.
From my tests with alternative weighting of scores I still find that the current weight performs best, so there likely won't be a change in that regard.
Judging from other general feedback in here my general plans for standard are to slightly increase the value of small hitcircles, weight fast streams a bit higher compared to spaced streams and improve the accuracy weighting formula to better represent a probabilistic model. I think those changes would improve the current situation commonly perceived as "hardrock needs to be buffed versus doubletime".
I've been occupied with other things than osu! in the last few weeks and I don't know when I will find the time to further tune pp again, but I am still regularily reading the posts in the feedback threads.
Topic Starter
1: Adjust the difficulty algorithm to hopefully fix things (takes thinking and code adjustments - variable from minutes to hours)Ivan wrote:
how long does it even take to do those kind of things ?
2: Calculate new difficulty for all ranked maps (takes a few hours)
3: Calculate new pp for a select amount of players for testing (takes from minutes to hours, depending on how many players)
4: Repeat at 1 if not satisfied with result (usually needs quite a few repetitions to fix / prevent undesired side effects of the changes)
5: Apply the new difficulty algorithm to _all_ maps (takes ~1 day)
6: Push the new difficulty algorithm into the osu! client so that ingame star rating aligns for online star rating (makes everyone recalculate star difficulty in song select, takes some minutes to hours depending on how many maps there are. Might make song select stutter a bit while in progress)
7: Re-calculate pp for every player and hope for as little as possible "I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
So does this imply we are to expect a net pp loss overall after the next change?Tom94 wrote:
"I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
Not necessarily, there're usually some people who gains pp while others lose pp for every calculation change. It's just that those who's gained pp after a change usually keeps quiet and grin, while those who's lost pp will go make threads/comments everywhere blaming the system being "stupid" =.=Woobowiz wrote:
So does this imply we are to expect a net pp loss overall after the next change?Tom94 wrote:
"I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
Do not under-estimate the effort to educate people after an "Armageddon" like that...
Tom94 wrote:
1: Adjust the difficulty algorithm to hopefully fix things (takes thinking and code adjustments - variable from minutes to hours)Ivan wrote:
how long does it even take to do those kind of things ?
2: Calculate new difficulty for all ranked maps (takes a few hours)
3: Calculate new pp for a select amount of players for testing (takes from minutes to hours, depending on how many players)
4: Repeat at 1 if not satisfied with result (usually needs quite a few repetitions to fix / prevent undesired side effects of the changes)
5: Apply the new difficulty algorithm to _all_ maps (takes ~1 day)
6: Push the new difficulty algorithm into the osu! client so that ingame star rating aligns for online star rating (makes everyone recalculate star difficulty in song select, takes some minutes to hours depending on how many maps there are. Might make song select stutter a bit while in progress)
7: Re-calculate pp for every player and hope for as little as possible "I lost 2 pp what is happening OMGOMGOMG" threads (takes ~1 week)
You could make this happen with no problem. I believe in you my friend
Jesse top 100 the dream incoming.Tom94 wrote:
The proposed max combo scaling would be an improvement over the pp system, but considering the effort it would take to implement it (adding it to the difficulty calculator, storing some kind of approximation of the combo scaling graph in the database etc.) other gamemodes should still be at a higher priority at the moment I think.Drezi wrote:
Well, we discussed a few of ideas here that have potential imo, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of feedback at this point.
From my tests with alternative weighting of scores I still find that the current weight performs best, so there likely won't be a change in that regard.
Judging from other general feedback in here my general plans for standard are to slightly increase the value of small hitcircles, weight fast streams a bit higher compared to spaced streams and improve the accuracy weighting formula to better represent a probabilistic model. I think those changes would improve the current situation commonly perceived as "hardrock needs to be buffed versus doubletime".
I've been occupied with other things than osu! in the last few weeks and I don't know when I will find the time to further tune pp again, but I am still regularily reading the posts in the feedback threads.
Christmas came early this year.Tom94 wrote:
Judging from other general feedback in here my general plans for standard are to slightly increase the value of small hitcircles, weight fast streams a bit higher compared to spaced streams and improve the accuracy weighting formula to better represent a probabilistic model. I think those changes would improve the current situation commonly perceived as "hardrock needs to be buffed versus doubletime".
EDIT:
I forgot to add this last time, but - about the max combo scaling; wouldn't it be possible to use the performance chart for that as well? It tells you about the HP bar's drain during the play, right? Which means that a section with a lower drain had less performance on. If you have a way of knowing where the most difficult sections in the map are, then it shouldn't be very hard to use the performance chart to determine how well the player did in said section. Maybe this is just a dumb idea because I'm missing something - but hitting more 100s results in a more empty hp bar, right? So it would be lower in that section. I know that this all heavily depends on the drain rate of the map, but there should always be some form of a difference between an SS and non-SS performance in the drain chart. If you combined that with max combo scaling, it might give you an even more accurate idea of the player's individual performance on a map.
Figured I'd throw that out there. Also, it might be nice to hear what kind of feedback there is on the doubles issue (unless that was already given and I missed it)
Problem Details: I SSed a map with NC and in my top ranks it says 202pp, however I gained absolutely no pp at all. Why is this?
Map link: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272?m=0
osu! version: 20140924.1
Map link: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272?m=0
osu! version: 20140924.1
The time between your top plays and their accuracies are hella suspicious yoakinator127 wrote:
Problem Details: I SSed a map with NC and in my top ranks it says 202pp, however I gained absolutely no pp at all. Why is this?
Map link: https://osu.ppy.sh/b/443272?m=0
osu! version: 20140924.1
I'm kidding of course. The only solution is to wait for the pp to come, also that post should really be submitted in Tech Support
it was, and there they said to post it here
What, who said that? I think they told him to post in in Gameplay & Rankings, but he posted it in this instead of the general G&Rsilmarilen wrote:
it was, and there they said to post it here
p/3404843
links directly to this thread
links directly to this thread
Well, you wanted examples of HDHR where we feel it's undervalued, so here, to me this feels kinda wrong, I mean I know my acc on that HDHR play is bad, but still I could FC this song nomod like ages ago, and this same play, same timing of hits would be way higher acc if it was on OD8 not OD10.
yeah you lost 4.5% accuracy it's really underrated zzz
Well they chose the wrong place to redirect to, also not a Mod so he's even less crediblesilmarilen wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/3404843
links directly to this thread
4.3% is MASSIVE, I'd say that should be the right amount of pp.Drezi wrote:
Well, you wanted examples of HDHR where we feel it's undervalued, so here, to me this feels kinda wrong, I mean I know my acc on that HDHR play is bad, but still I could FC this song nomod like ages ago, and this same play, same timing of hits would be way higher acc if it was on OD8 not OD10.
Different OD, that's the point -.-' Sure you can tell me that it's ok, but you can't just compare the %, the actual timing of hits is what matters. As someone said earlier you can't get pp for the acc you don't have and that's true, but you shouldn't get less accpp either, just because a higher OD means more 100s for the same hits.
but why should you get more accpp for the same hits at od10 that you would have made at od8 for that acc
its the same play
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
its the same play
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
quick rule of thumb that works for me;
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
What was the UR for each play if you can check? If you had similar accuracy for each and the difference of 4% acc was caused by the OD change, I feel it is undervalued. The smaller circles + use of hidden should give a benefit.Drezi wrote:
Well, you wanted examples of HDHR where we feel it's undervalued, so here, to me this feels kinda wrong, I mean I know my acc on that HDHR play is bad, but still I could FC this song nomod like ages ago, and this same play, same timing of hits would be way higher acc if it was on OD8 not OD10.
Like I wrote above, the use of hidden and extra aim should give a bonus. It's a similar play but there should still be quite a difference.GoldenWolf wrote:
quick rule of thumb that works for me;
SS OD8 = 98% OD9 = 96% OD10
So it's no surprise you got no pp from... basically the same play.
Well he already got the aim bonus from the mods, but given the map... the bonuses are pretty small because the map itself is fairly easy to begin with, and since HD gives a percentage bonus... Yeah.
I think the issue here is that people arguing against Drezi aren't realizing that his point is that accuracy isn't the only thing that should be looked at with HDHR at Insane level or higher. It's not just the OD that increases - the circles decrease in size, the AR becomes disproportionate and HD on top of that increases the AR further and makes it way harder to time your notes correctly, as well as aim them properly - not to mention that weird sliders become incredibly hard with HR due to the decreased circle size, so you'd have to trace them much more precisely. In short - a 95% HDHR FC requires a lot more skill than a 99% nomods SS. I'm a HR player and I've yet to find a map where this isn't the case. HR is undervalued, both by the pp system and the players. I think the new update will do the mod some justice.
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
well tess thats why i specifically said acc pp
Well, that's exactly what I said, we agree here. I said it shouldn't give less either, it should be the same.Riince wrote:
higher od shouldnt give more accpp than a nomod play just because its higher od but only when the player is already hitting more accurately than the lower od can show.
That's a great example, and so true. Easy to see, almost EVERYONE has that Darren Korb song in their top performances around my rank, and generally DT plays only, hardly anyone has any HR plays, you're crazy if you think that Shotgun Senorita play is of the same difficulty.Tess wrote:
Also, if you want a good example of HR being undervaued;
I could get that DT score 10x over in the time it took me to get that HR score, and I mostly play HR.
My top plays are filled with DT too, even though I've been playing HR mainly for quite some time now, and still I only have one play that's worth anything with it. DT started to fill my top ranks, as soon as I got into it.
Do you guys really believe that the majority of players has a special gift for DT and sucks at HR magically? Maybe it has something to do with HR being underappreciated.
Anyway I did not intend to start a debate here, Tom already said he'll address some issues here, I just posted this example that I felt was off, as requested.